While I'd like to believe that abortion and gay marriage are important issues, I also know that economic issues trump them in most respects. So, which economic issues are the Republicans not on board wiht?

oVo wrote:Admitting that Wall Street can't monitor itself, the trickle down doesn't work and squeezing extra tax dollars from the wealthy in America is necessary...

of course gay rights, immigration and women's issues too.

Rhetoric aside, what monitoring systems did the Democrats put in or want to put in? I mean, taxes fine... the people that voted for Barack Obama want to raise taxes on the rich, which is debatable as sound economic policy. But how are the Democrats monitoring Wall Street?

stoicbird wrote:Romney is cleverer than Obama, we've seen that during the debates. Romney has more class by far and more compassion.

Face it america. You're a rapidly changing country. You know have females and immigrants deciding who runs your land. Within the next 4 decades America will not function as she has. She sat and watched the richest nations tear each other apart ignoring everything except her own interests.

I watched as a specially hand-picked group of democrats happily waved their flags waiting for Obama to make his speech. Never have I seen such a bunch of none normals in one place. That's your fucking future America, Good luck!

If I was incharge of trident I'd be giving you some of you useless fucks some friendly fire xxxxx

If he was more clevererer he would have won. Instead of embracing the more extreme of the conservative, all he had to do was maintain his obvious and true roots in moderate-land, and he'd have received many more votes, including possibly mine, and I suspect the majority. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative highway, I decided to insure that didn't happen as much as possible. If he even picked a less ultra-conservative running mate, I may have considered it, but he went too far, and paid the price.

I truly, honestly and deeply hope that this has been a real education for everyone, and hopefully this time we can get some compromise instead of bitter in-fighting.

In any case, I would say the closest you should ever come close to being in charge of trident, would be maybe being allowed to chew a pack of it.

50.4% to 48.1%. I think you're reading into this too much.

I think you're not reading enough into it. It is in reality the very fact that it was close, that reinforces my point. Very little would have been needed to swing it the other way, Romney went the wrong way, and paid the price. I think his embracing the more conservative path, actually inspired more people to get out there and vote. I certainly know I myself actually didnt mind the idea of him as president when he was moderate, and being ridiculed by the sociopaths that were vying for the nomination from the beginning. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative bandwagon, instead of staying true to his roots...or history...that he became frightening, especially with his VP pick.

Its odd too, since he obviously had the Republican vote anyways. Most would have voted for big bird himself just to get Obama out of there, so why he didn't cater to the middle, where the election was decided is beyond me.

So my statement stands, and has since been backed up quite regularly in the press. He was not cleverer, he was stupiderer, and in the end, the loserer.

john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

stoicbird wrote:Obama got 93% of the black vote. 74% of the hispanic vote and still only got 1% more than Romney.

Did he get these votes solely on his issues or just because he's not white? I hope its down to his issues and I hope he can deliver his promises. I wish him well.

Well, I wonder if hispanics were slightly concerned that some of their relatives would be deported by the far more conservative approach to immigration that Romney was likely to implement.

As far as the black vote, I suspect some absolutely related to him as a black, just as many cant relate to him because they are white, but what has been the historical ratio of black voting republican vs democrat in the past? One must see the actual change to discuss it really.

john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

stoicbird wrote:Romney is cleverer than Obama, we've seen that during the debates. Romney has more class by far and more compassion.

Face it america. You're a rapidly changing country. You know have females and immigrants deciding who runs your land. Within the next 4 decades America will not function as she has. She sat and watched the richest nations tear each other apart ignoring everything except her own interests.

I watched as a specially hand-picked group of democrats happily waved their flags waiting for Obama to make his speech. Never have I seen such a bunch of none normals in one place. That's your fucking future America, Good luck!

If I was incharge of trident I'd be giving you some of you useless fucks some friendly fire xxxxx

If he was more clevererer he would have won. Instead of embracing the more extreme of the conservative, all he had to do was maintain his obvious and true roots in moderate-land, and he'd have received many more votes, including possibly mine, and I suspect the majority. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative highway, I decided to insure that didn't happen as much as possible. If he even picked a less ultra-conservative running mate, I may have considered it, but he went too far, and paid the price.

I truly, honestly and deeply hope that this has been a real education for everyone, and hopefully this time we can get some compromise instead of bitter in-fighting.

In any case, I would say the closest you should ever come close to being in charge of trident, would be maybe being allowed to chew a pack of it.

50.4% to 48.1%. I think you're reading into this too much.

I think you're not reading enough into it. It is in reality the very fact that it was close, that reinforces my point. Very little would have been needed to swing it the other way, Romney went the wrong way, and paid the price. I think his embracing the more conservative path, actually inspired more people to get out there and vote. I certainly know I myself actually didnt mind the idea of him as president when he was moderate, and being ridiculed by the sociopaths that were vying for the nomination from the beginning. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative bandwagon, instead of staying true to his roots...or history...that he became frightening, especially with his VP pick.

Its odd too, since he obviously had the Republican vote anyways. Most would have voted for big bird himself just to get Obama out of there, so why he didn't cater to the middle, where the election was decided is beyond me.

So my statement stands, and has since been backed up quite regularly in the press. He was not cleverer, he was stupiderer, and in the end, the loserer.

Like I've said in another thread, I don't think people didn't vote for Romney because he moved to the conservative side of the social spectrum. I think people had a bad opinion of Romney as a rich, fatcat, white guy who was going to benefit the rich (we have been a true charaterization). If the Republicans had put Rubio or Christie up instead of Romney with the same message, I believe the Republicans would hold the White House.

In other words, I don't think it was social conservatism that lost the presidential election (unfortunately). I think it was a poor candidate. I compare it to the 2004 election. The Democrats should have won, but they didn't because John Kerry was not a good candidate. Romney was not a good candidate.

And I do wish it was social conservatism that lost the election, because then I think it would change the Republican Party.

stoicbird wrote:Romney is cleverer than Obama, we've seen that during the debates. Romney has more class by far and more compassion.

Face it america. You're a rapidly changing country. You know have females and immigrants deciding who runs your land. Within the next 4 decades America will not function as she has. She sat and watched the richest nations tear each other apart ignoring everything except her own interests.

I watched as a specially hand-picked group of democrats happily waved their flags waiting for Obama to make his speech. Never have I seen such a bunch of none normals in one place. That's your fucking future America, Good luck!

If I was incharge of trident I'd be giving you some of you useless fucks some friendly fire xxxxx

If he was more clevererer he would have won. Instead of embracing the more extreme of the conservative, all he had to do was maintain his obvious and true roots in moderate-land, and he'd have received many more votes, including possibly mine, and I suspect the majority. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative highway, I decided to insure that didn't happen as much as possible. If he even picked a less ultra-conservative running mate, I may have considered it, but he went too far, and paid the price.

I truly, honestly and deeply hope that this has been a real education for everyone, and hopefully this time we can get some compromise instead of bitter in-fighting.

In any case, I would say the closest you should ever come close to being in charge of trident, would be maybe being allowed to chew a pack of it.

50.4% to 48.1%. I think you're reading into this too much.

I think you're not reading enough into it. It is in reality the very fact that it was close, that reinforces my point. Very little would have been needed to swing it the other way, Romney went the wrong way, and paid the price. I think his embracing the more conservative path, actually inspired more people to get out there and vote. I certainly know I myself actually didnt mind the idea of him as president when he was moderate, and being ridiculed by the sociopaths that were vying for the nomination from the beginning. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative bandwagon, instead of staying true to his roots...or history...that he became frightening, especially with his VP pick.

Its odd too, since he obviously had the Republican vote anyways. Most would have voted for big bird himself just to get Obama out of there, so why he didn't cater to the middle, where the election was decided is beyond me.

So my statement stands, and has since been backed up quite regularly in the press. He was not cleverer, he was stupiderer, and in the end, the loserer.

Like I've said in another thread, I don't think people didn't vote for Romney because he moved to the conservative side of the social spectrum. I think people had a bad opinion of Romney as a rich, fatcat, white guy who was going to benefit the rich (we have been a true charaterization). If the Republicans had put Rubio or Christie up instead of Romney with the same message, I believe the Republicans would hold the White House.

In other words, I don't think it was social conservatism that lost the presidential election (unfortunately). I think it was a poor candidate. I compare it to the 2004 election. The Democrats should have won, but they didn't because John Kerry was not a good candidate. Romney was not a good candidate.

And I do wish it was social conservatism that lost the election, because then I think it would change the Republican Party.

Well, no doubt you are partially right and obviously there are many underlying reasons why individuals didn't vote for him, and a rich Gordon Gecko was definitely among them., but to discount that many disliked the conservatism, which certainly influenced the vote is far too speculative. In any case, I know that was one of the main reasons I didn't vote for him, and while, suggesting that others think like I do, would be even more speculative, its at least possible.

In any case, its fairly presumptive, to say he couldn't have swung it the other way, with a few changes along the way, or mores specifically, not making so many damn changes, and just sticking with his past moderate policies, that clearly are a large part of his success in life to this point.

john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

It is all speculation, agreed. And the Republicans could fix the two items, the candidate and the social conservatism, in the next election. And I think they should fix both of those items. But if they fix the one (candidate) and not the other (social conservatism), I think they can still win.

I'm still going to go with the main reason he didn't win was the charisma factor. He was pounded by everyone for his wealth and keeping tax cuts for the wealthy (ironically, I read on WSJ today that it is likely that the president will not get or push for tax increases on the wealthy in the next four years). He was not pounded so much on abortion or gay marriage (although I did see abortion-type ads at the end). The election and reelection of Bush showed that Americans will vote for a socially conservative president. I don't think that much has changed in eight years, although perhaps the views on gay marriage have. But again, gay marriage was not discussed at all (among other things; no one talked about the Patriot Act and no one talked about global warming). I think for most, if not all, people, it was an election based on economics and money, not on social issues. And when your candidate is a rich guy who is seen as taking jobs away from Americans and giving them to Chinese, buying up and destroying US companies, commenting on the 47%, etc., you're not going to win.

thegreekdog wrote:It is all speculation, agreed. And the Republicans could fix the two items, the candidate and the social conservatism, in the next election. And I think they should fix both of those items. But if they fix the one (candidate) and not the other (social conservatism), I think they can still win.

I'm still going to go with the main reason he didn't win was the charisma factor. He was pounded by everyone for his wealth and keeping tax cuts for the wealthy (ironically, I read on WSJ today that it is likely that the president will not get or push for tax increases on the wealthy in the next four years). He was not pounded so much on abortion or gay marriage (although I did see abortion-type ads at the end). The election and reelection of Bush showed that Americans will vote for a socially conservative president. I don't think that much has changed in eight years, although perhaps the views on gay marriage have. But again, gay marriage was not discussed at all (among other things; no one talked about the Patriot Act and no one talked about global warming). I think for most, if not all, people, it was an election based on economics and money, not on social issues. And when your candidate is a rich guy who is seen as taking jobs away from Americans and giving them to Chinese, buying up and destroying US companies, commenting on the 47%, etc., you're not going to win.

He definitely made some mistakes. In that context, its actually scary he got so many votes.

I really do hope this is a wake-up call for any republicans that haven't gone off the deep end forever though.

The extremism was kind of fun while it lasted, but it really seems to be a good time to sit down and actually get something done now. People are clearly just going to keep voting in new people until that happens.

john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

thegreekdog wrote:It is all speculation, agreed. And the Republicans could fix the two items, the candidate and the social conservatism, in the next election. And I think they should fix both of those items. But if they fix the one (candidate) and not the other (social conservatism), I think they can still win.

I'm still going to go with the main reason he didn't win was the charisma factor. He was pounded by everyone for his wealth and keeping tax cuts for the wealthy (ironically, I read on WSJ today that it is likely that the president will not get or push for tax increases on the wealthy in the next four years). He was not pounded so much on abortion or gay marriage (although I did see abortion-type ads at the end). The election and reelection of Bush showed that Americans will vote for a socially conservative president. I don't think that much has changed in eight years, although perhaps the views on gay marriage have. But again, gay marriage was not discussed at all (among other things; no one talked about the Patriot Act and no one talked about global warming). I think for most, if not all, people, it was an election based on economics and money, not on social issues. And when your candidate is a rich guy who is seen as taking jobs away from Americans and giving them to Chinese, buying up and destroying US companies, commenting on the 47%, etc., you're not going to win.

He definitely made some mistakes. In that context, its actually scary he got so many votes.

I really do hope this is a wake-up call for any republicans that haven't gone off the deep end forever though.

The extremism was kind of fun while it lasted, but it really seems to be a good time to sit down and actually get something done now. People are clearly just going to keep voting in new people until that happens.

I've been banging that drum for going on six years. I am not hopeful.

I'm telling you - they're going to put Marco Rubio up in 2016, who is actually really more conservative than Romney and he's going to win big.

AAFitz wrote:Well, no doubt you are partially right and obviously there are many underlying reasons why individuals didn't vote for him, and a rich Gordon Gecko was definitely among them., but to discount that many disliked the conservatism, which certainly influenced the vote is far too speculative. In any case, I know that was one of the main reasons I didn't vote for him, and while, suggesting that others think like I do, would be even more speculative, its at least possible.

In any case, its fairly presumptive, to say he couldn't have swung it the other way, with a few changes along the way, or mores specifically, not making so many damn changes, and just sticking with his past moderate policies, that clearly are a large part of his success in life to this point.

This Republican will tell you why she didn't vote for Romney.

1) His views on many things swung North, South, East, West, depending on who was asking.2) His claim of balancing the Olympics budget, while true, was only true because he was able to borrow from the Federal government, which meant that if he'd been president when he had to balance the Olympics budget, he would not have been able to borrow from the Federal government to do so, so would have failed to balance that budget - because the Fed had to borrow the money, increasing the deficit, in order to loan him the money he needed to succeed. And he wants to deny that type of thing to anyone else.3) He picked an anti-choice running mate.4) His numbers for his "cap the deductions" plan did not add up. He knew they didn't add up, because if they had, he wouldn't have kept telling folks to pick a number to set as the cap, he would himself have known what that number needed to be.5) He refused to reveal his taxes; no other candidate for any office has ever been so secretive about whether he did or did not pay appropriate US taxes.6) While he made a lot of money in his ventures, his ventures lost over 20,000 American jobs, so his claim to know how to create jobs was bogus.7) His "fix" to Medicare wouldn't fix the part that was broken. Today's retirees, part of the baby boomers, are what's busted that bank, but his (Ryan's) "fix" would not reduce any benefits to any baby boomer. Instead, it would kill medicare for everyone after the baby boomers.In all, these things added up to He was the type who would say anything, ANYTHING, to get elected, even if it was not true.Which leads to 9) and then he'd deny saying what he had said.10) He and most (other) Republicans refuse to acknowledge that what worked for Reagan when Reagan lowered "wealthy tax" rates from 70% to a lower number; then realized he'd gone too far and had to raise them up a little - wouldn't work now that "wealthy tax" rates are already lower than the number Reagan had realized was "too low" for the United States' economic health.

So, the only "social issue" part of this was the anti-choice Ryan. It's important to me, as a pro-choice Republican, but it's not "the" most important thing to me. Five through Nine of my list were the main reasons I chose not to vote for him. If he'd said, "Would I lie to you?" I'd have to say, "Yes you did!"

AAFitz wrote:Well, no doubt you are partially right and obviously there are many underlying reasons why individuals didn't vote for him, and a rich Gordon Gecko was definitely among them., but to discount that many disliked the conservatism, which certainly influenced the vote is far too speculative. In any case, I know that was one of the main reasons I didn't vote for him, and while, suggesting that others think like I do, would be even more speculative, its at least possible.

In any case, its fairly presumptive, to say he couldn't have swung it the other way, with a few changes along the way, or mores specifically, not making so many damn changes, and just sticking with his past moderate policies, that clearly are a large part of his success in life to this point.

This Republican will tell you why she didn't vote for Romney.

1) His views on many things swung North, South, East, West, depending on who was asking. - Agreed, but President Obama is largely similar in this respect.2) His claim of balancing the Olympics budget, while true, was only true because he was able to borrow from the Federal government, which meant that if he'd been president when he had to balance the Olympics budget, he would not have been able to borrow from the Federal government to do so, so would have failed to balance that budget - because the Fed had to borrow the money, increasing the deficit, in order to loan him the money he needed to succeed. And he wants to deny that type of thing to anyone else.Agreed.3) He picked an anti-choice running mate.I think you mean pro-life, but agreed.4) His numbers for his "cap the deductions" plan did not add up. He knew they didn't add up, because if they had, he wouldn't have kept telling folks to pick a number to set as the cap, he would himself have known what that number needed to be.Incorrect. He didn't have numbers. President Obama also didn't have numbers or any details, as I've shown in other threads.5) He refused to reveal his taxes; no other candidate for any office has ever been so secretive about whether he did or did not pay appropriate US taxes.He did reveal his tax returns.6) While he made a lot of money in his ventures, his ventures lost over 20,000 American jobs, so his claim to know how to create jobs was bogus.Also incorrect. Despite the DCCC's rhetoric to the contrary, multiple fact-checking websites proved this is false.7) His "fix" to Medicare wouldn't fix the part that was broken. Today's retirees, part of the baby boomers, are what's busted that bank, but his (Ryan's) "fix" would not reduce any benefits to any baby boomer. Instead, it would kill medicare for everyone after the baby boomers.Agreed, but Medicare is also killed by the Affordable Care Act.In all, these things added up to He was the type who would say anything, ANYTHING, to get elected, even if it was not true.Which leads to 9) and then he'd deny saying what he had said.10) He and most (other) Republicans refuse to acknowledge that what worked for Reagan when Reagan lowered "wealthy tax" rates from 70% to a lower number; then realized he'd gone too far and had to raise them up a little - wouldn't work now that "wealthy tax" rates are already lower than the number Reagan had realized was "too low" for the United States' economic health.

So, the only "social issue" part of this was the anti-choice Ryan. It's important to me, as a pro-choice Republican, but it's not "the" most important thing to me. Five through Nine of my list were the main reasons I chose not to vote for him. If he'd said, "Would I lie to you?" I'd have to say, "Yes you did!"

No. I meant anti-choice. See, how is it "pro life" if, for example, the mother's life is at stake if she bore the child? (Ryan openly stated he saw no reason to make except for life of mother, and many feel that way.)How is it "pro life" if, for example, once the child is born no one wants to pay for that child's WELFARE (something that the Republican campaign openly dissed as an improper entitlement).How is it "pro life" if so many of those so-called pro-lifers think it's perfectly fine to bomb clinics because the clinic performs perfectly legal procedures that that person just doesn't happen to agree with?

Plus, while I'm pro-choice, that doesn't mean I "want" people to have abortions. I'd prefer they make other choices. But in the end, the choice should remain between the woman and whatever God she believes in. So I'm pro-choice, not anti-life, while so-called pro-choicers are anti-choice much more than they are pro-life.

4) His numbers for his "cap the deductions" plan did not add up. He knew they didn't add up, because if they had, he wouldn't have kept telling folks to pick a number to set as the cap, he would himself have known what that number needed to be.

thegreekdog wrote:Incorrect. He didn't have numbers. President Obama also didn't have numbers or any details, as I've shown in other threads.

You make half my point: he didn't have numbers, which means he COULD NOT confirm that he could "create 12 million jobs" like his ads kept spouting. He also brought up numbers in the debates; it's just, he brought up several different percentages and told the audience to pick one (he used some same, some different numbers in various interviews, always telling audience to pick one but continuing to claim that the numbers meant he'd create 12 million jobs.)

Obama did have numbers and details, he's had them, it's just that to get there he wants to raise some taxes so the Republicans refuse his numbers.

5) He refused to reveal his taxes; no other candidate for any office has ever been so secretive about whether he did or did not pay appropriate US taxes.

thegreekdog wrote:He did reveal his tax returns.

1 year, then another year, not the ten years everyone else reveals.

6) While he made a lot of money in his ventures, his ventures lost over 20,000 American jobs, so his claim to know how to create jobs was bogus.

Other multiple fact-checking websites proved that his company's ventures costing over 20,000 American jobs, (while netting him and his cohorts hundreds of millions at the expense of several companies who ended up footing the bills for as long as they could before bankrupting and closing) is true.

7) His "fix" to Medicare wouldn't fix the part that was broken. Today's retirees, part of the baby boomers, are what's busted that bank, but his (Ryan's) "fix" would not reduce any benefits to any baby boomer. Instead, it would kill medicare for everyone after the baby boomers.

thegreekdog wrote:Agreed, but Medicare is also killed by the Affordable Care Act.

No, Medicare is not killed by the Affordable Care Act. Insurance plans must meet a maximum percent toward administration, some repayments are made less, and a panel will review things like a 96 year old smoker who needs a heart transplant. I happen to agree that spending excessive amounts to prolong someone who's already lived that long, is a bit abusive of funds now that we can't afford as much.

But, counter the treatment payment reductions and the "death panels" for Seniors with, the Affordable Care Act now pays more toward seniors' maintenance prescriptions than before, and many seniors end up saving thousands of dollars each year thanks to "Obamacare."

Reducing payments or denying some excessive costs is not at all the same as ending Medicare. Instead, the money is spent toward preventive health and meds for Seniors and for those who are not yet (but hopefully will eventually be) Seniors.

Last edited by stahrgazer on Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

stahrgazer wrote:Other multiple fact-checking websites proved that his company's ventures costing over 20,000 American jobs, (while netting him and his cohorts hundreds of millions at the expense of several companies who ended up footing the bills for as long as they could before bankrupting and closing) is true.

I was going to ask for sources on this. Then, I remembered that the election is over.

It was a good read, but I think all the political propaganda on the first page of the article may be a turn-off for many.If you want the meat of the story, just start about a third of the way down on Page 2.

Incidentally, while corporate raiders might call themselves "venture capitalists" I think it's important to note that legitimate venture capitalists who are not raider do exist.

stahrgazer wrote:So I'm pro-choice, not anti-life, while so-called pro-choicers are anti-choice much more than they are pro-life.

What does that mean? I'm also pro-choice politically and I'm pro-life personally (makes a bad Catholic). But you're using the incorrect term; I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's a little fallacious. And Ryan never said he would kill the mother to spare the child (at least that I heard or saw). Some congressional candidates said that, but not Ryan.

In any event, if you voted for Obama, you voted for a president and vice-president combination who would have direct government funding for abortions. That goes a little above and beyond pro-choice.

stahrgazer wrote:You make half my point: he didn't have numbers, which means he COULD NOT confirm that he could "create 12 million jobs" like his ads kept spouting. He also brought up numbers in the debates; it's just, he brought up several different percentages and told the audience to pick one (he used some same, some different numbers in various interviews, always telling audience to pick one but continuing to claim that the numbers meant he'd create 12 million jobs.)

Obama did have numbers and details, he's had them, it's just that to get there he wants to raise some taxes so the Republicans refuse his numbers.

Unless and until someone produces Obama's plan, numbers, and details (i.e. you), this is incorrect. I've linked to the president's financial plan on his campaign page: no numbers, no details. If you're going to criticize Romney, at least don't be a hypocrit about it.

stahrgazer wrote:1 year, then another year, not the ten years everyone else reveals.

Ten years? The standard is two years.

stahrgazer wrote:Other multiple fact-checking websites proved that his company's ventures costing over 20,000 American jobs, (while netting him and his cohorts hundreds of millions at the expense of several companies who ended up footing the bills for as long as they could before bankrupting and closing) is true.

Yes... and? The company he worked for costing jobs and Romney directly costing jobs are vastly different. The Obama campaign lied. And when it was called out, it continued to lie. Eventually the campaign stopped, but you're bringing it up again and it's not true.

stahrgazer wrote:No, Medicare is not killed by the Affordable Care Act. Insurance plans must meet a maximum percent toward administration, some repayments are made less, and a panel will review things like a 96 year old smoker who needs a heart transplant.

The Affordable Care Act partially or completely (I'm not entirely sure) defunds Medicare. I don't even understand what you're trying to explain (with the death panels and whatnot).

stahrgazer wrote:So I'm pro-choice, not anti-life, while so-called pro-choicers are anti-choice much more than they are pro-life.

What does that mean? I'm also pro-choice politically and I'm pro-life personally (makes a bad Catholic). But you're using the incorrect term; I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's a little fallacious. And Ryan never said he would kill the mother to spare the child (at least that I heard or saw). Some congressional candidates said that, but not Ryan.

It means, "pro life" is a catchy name but that's the fallacious name; anti-choice is more factual, so that's what I use.Ryan said it, in interviews I heard on radio and later looked up online. Sorry, didn't keep the site addy to send you to prove it but it was Ryan's lips moving and Ryan's voice answering, that he does not support abortion under any circumstances and believed the President should push for that, and that he'd push for that as v.p.

thegreekdog wrote:In any event, if you voted for Obama, you voted for a president and vice-president combination who would have direct government funding for abortions. That goes a little above and beyond pro-choice.

No, it does not. My dental insurance funds dentures, but I do not choose to get dentures. And at this point, the only direct funding is for CONTRACEPTION, not abortions...From a religious aspect, it may be unpalatable to some, but our nation is founded on a separation between church and state which means we do not mandate a religion but should also mean religions cannot mandate to the people unless the people choose to practice the religion. Like "dentures" "good Catholics" can choose not to partake of the contraception part of their insurance plans, since that goes against their religion; but those who do not wish to practice "no contraception for religious reasons" will be able to get the items covered no matter what insurance plans they use.

Still, if it were true - which it's not, but if it were true that Obamacare funds abortions, well, from a social/economic aspect, funding abortions is more viable than providing WIC, childcare, and other things.

thegreekdog wrote:Unless and until someone produces Obama's plan, numbers, and details (i.e. you), this is incorrect. I've linked to the president's financial plan on his campaign page: no numbers, no details. If you're going to criticize Romney, at least don't be a hypocrit about it.

The budget had the numbers, but will not be published until it is passed. I'm not being a hypocrite about criticizing Romney; he used numbers falsely and expected the majority of us would be too stupid to realize he was doing that. Thank God, he was wrong about American stupidity!

thegreekdog wrote:Ten years? The standard is two years.

Nope, 8-10 years is standard, as even his fellow Republicans note.

thegreekdog wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:Other multiple fact-checking websites proved that his company's ventures costing over 20,000 American jobs, (while netting him and his cohorts hundreds of millions at the expense of several companies who ended up footing the bills for as long as they could before bankrupting and closing) is true.

Yes... and? The company he worked for costing jobs and Romney directly costing jobs are vastly different. The Obama campaign lied. And when it was called out, it continued to lie. Eventually the campaign stopped, but you're bringing it up again and it's not true.

[/quote]

Wrong, it's not vastly different at all because it was Romney's brainchild and Romney was CEO while this stuff was going on, plus Romney directly benefited by hundreds of millions in "incentives" while leaving those companies stuck with the additional hundreds of millions in debt that forced them out.

thegreekdog wrote:The Affordable Care Act partially or completely (I'm not entirely sure) defunds Medicare. I don't even understand what you're trying to explain (with the death panels and whatnot).

Well, I'm entirely sure. The Affordable Care Act only "defunds" Medicare as follows: Hospitals, doctors, and administrators (insurers) will be paid a little less for some services that were being charged in excess of what seems reasonable based on average charges for those services; and reduces the excessive administrative costs (requires that more of the revenues go toward actual healthcare than the executives' pockets which saves the seniors and the government, some money). Then, those saved monies are deferred to help pay for major prescriptions for seniors which saves a majority of them more than the "defunding" cuts; and a little is also deferred for more preventive health care so that typical diseases and illnesses can be delayed or stopped before they end up costing excessive amounts when someone gets to "senior" status.

Romney is/was not a quick fix for the economy. That does not exist.Now he won't have to figure out and share his 5 mythical points to balance the budget, reduce unemployment and save the world fromgreedy, unethical and risky banking practices.

Romney/Ryan lost their home states 60% - 40% in the presidential vote,as well as all the densely populated northeast. Yes, it was a very close election, but that's how balloting has been since 2000.

oVo wrote:Romney is/was not a quick fix for the economy. That does not exist.Now he won't have to figure out and share his 5 mythical points to balance the budget, reduce unemployment and save the world fromgreedy, unethical and risky banking practices.

A quick fix does not exist and that is what Romney promised. If the people who voted for Obama voted for him because they knew an economic fix wouldn't be a quick one, I'd be shocked.